Talk:Thom Mayne

Morphosis
No buildings? Is this a vanity entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetman (talk • contribs) 4 December 2004
 * See: Morphosis —203.109.254.50 10:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A redirect from Morphosis to Thom Mayne is not correct. Morphosis is an office with more than one partners (Michael Rotondi). --88.72.231.171 13:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael Rotondi may be a notable architect in his own right, but is Morphosis notable separately from them? What could we say about Morphosis that we wouldn't also include in this article? -Will Beback · † · 19:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael Rotondi started his own office in 1991. My understanding was that Thom Mayne was the sole design principal at Morphosis. Also, what do people think about the "Success of a rare idea" section? I am not quite sure what it is getting at. - Generaltso 23:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As a biography of a living person and unsourced, should this not be up for deletion? Lynnae 18:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are several external inks leading to profiles - are we sure this is unsourced? Since the subject has received the top prize in architecture, and is therefore very notable, we shouldn't delete the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ah, I see where you're pointing to. I wasn't questioning the notability, merely reading it over at not seeing any citations. I'll go in and see if I can add citation links to the reference material. Lynnae 20:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute in "Criticism" section
Recent edits have completely cut down the "criticism" section, despite supporting citations being present. This seems like a major NPOV issue. The original content was present for several months and was removed without discussion or any mention on Talk. I assume first-party edits on this one (editing IP is from general location of the business headquarters). If criticism of the subject is going to be censored, then this article is clearly vanity and should be removed completely. I highly suggest reverting the edit until some consensus is reached. (Just added NPOV-section tag for now.)

173.77.25.210 (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The editing history of the page indicates ""Criticism" section edited to remove inflammatory language and sections without direct support or citation." The content in question, which was edit, out is as follows:

Students and faculty at Mayne's New Academic Building at The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art in New York, NY criticize the building's excessive emphasis on visual appeal over utility. Street-level classrooms are exposed to the busy city streets outside, as well as the main lobby of the building, providing an additional source of distraction for both students and faculty. Fitted with a central staircase that does not allow direct access to each floor, two emergency staircases that cannot be accessed through the first floor, two additional emergency staircases that only allow access between the second lower level and the second floor, as well as a skip-stop elevator sharing a common call button with a "local" elevator, navigating Mayne's New Academic Building at The Cooper Union is confusing, time-consuming and counter-intuitive for persons with pressing schedules-- a counter-productive feature of the building for a top-ranked engineering school. Additionally, the "green" external mesh layer disallows adequate natural lighting to penetrate into the building, leaving a cloudy, gloomy feel throughout the building all day.

And was replaced with:

There has also been some recent criticism of Mayne's New Academic Building for The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art in New York, NY, as the skip-stop elevators and elimination of traditional egress stairs has been questioned as unnecessary and confusing.

The new content does in fact address the navigation issues of the building (the skip-stop elevators and the unique egress staircases), but lacks entirely in the description of the issues they pose, which may (or may not) be of some use to article visitors. Furthermore, the issues created by the central staircase as cited in the original content as well as the referenced article is completely absent in the current content. I highly recommend maintaining the original content, but editing it to remove terms of exaggeration, the most notable of which is "EXCESSIVE emphasis on visual appeal..."

Additionally, descriptions of the building's characteristics, though unreferenced, (notably the exposed classrooms) should remain, as they are descriptions of a physical standing structure-- that is, it may be taken as fact since anyone may simply go to the structure and make these observations.

It should be noted, however, that two of the three citations that exist in the article are in the Criticism section, where the remaining citation supports only the fact that Mayne graduated at the University of Southern California. Descriptions of the Firm, Design Philosophy, and even Awards are unreferenced and is presented as fact ("Citation Needed" markers were added following this post). This again supports the possibility that this article was created for vanity, and removal may be necessary. [Self Correction: It appears that External Links are used as citations, as indicated in the above section. I removed the "citation needed" markers, but left neutrality markers.]

71.183.68.254(talk) 16:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

LA based architech
I removed where the subject is based from the lede sentence. I guess a case can be made for where he is based contributes to his notability? Maybe include this further into the lede but not in the first sentence? --Malerooster (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, where he is based is indeed notable. I did not remove your addition of "American". BMK (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How so? --Malerooster (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

EL section
I removed some dead links and non subject specific links. --Malerooster (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2016 (UTC)